13 comments:

By the way, it's becoming more and more obvious that our little Jane Galt swallowed Rand's bs hook, line and sinker. She has these little Randian dog-whistles in her posts, like Bush used to send I'm-one-of-you messages to the fundamentalists by quoting bits of the Bible.

Everyone should read this piece of crap. Rand's heroes are psychopaths.

By the way, it's becoming more and more obvious that our little Jane Galt swallowed Rand's bs hook, line and sinker

Oh yeah - I didn't think there was any question of that. It's actually fairly obvious, despite her exhortations to the contrary. Her profs at Chicago didn't do her any favors as far as her ideas on how economies work go, but she was probably already addled by Rand long before they did their damage.

Please tell me you didn't spend good money on the book though. You got it used or something, right?

Or - better yet - you're using your library's copy. I just find something completely amusing about the idea of checking a Rand book out of the library.

It's been pointed out often enough that anyone who behaved in real life the way John Galt is depicted would be a creepy stalker at best, but it occurred to me the other day that a good (or at least plausible) story could be written about him.

Imagine a paranoid delusional character employed in a menial capacity by a large firm, who believes himself to be a genius who has discovered a radical new source of energy, and who stalks the company's glamorous COO, etc.

The protagonist's warped perception of reality would explain why so many of the characters are just caricatures, why railroads are depicted as being of primary importance in an era when air travel is commonplace, and so on.

I figured McArdle was lying about her internet name because names are important to people, and they don't spend years calling themselves Jane Galt unless they want to be called Jane Galt. It's nice to have the proof, though.

ATLAS SHRUGGED is a perfect fetish object for people who loathe and distrust literature and film (as opposed to books and movies). It looks and feels like smart-people stuff, but unlike works by those Liberal fucks Steinbeck and Faulkner and Baldwin, it tells them that they are entitled to unearned entitlement, and that is its only message. So of course Herself is a fan; it's what passes for hot 'n' horny porn in her world.

Oh you should. If you're going to mock a book you really should give it a read to make sure you have firm ground in your mocking.

Make no mistake - the book is terrible. A terribly written book founded on a hideously awful philosophy of life. But you can't glean the true terribleness of the book through someone else's summary - you need to read it for yourself to truly grasp just how bad the whole thing is.

Nony: I can't, I just can't. Randians I have known have made the same suggestion, for different reasons of course, but my response to them was that Roger Ebert's review of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (both versions) was good enough for me, and I don't feel the need to see either film to know they are pieces of garbage. Life is too short, and damned pleasant, to wreck my memory cells with retarded Randishness.